# C_2013164EN.01001902.xml

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/19

---

Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Moallem Insurance v Council

(Case T-182/13)

2013/C 164/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Moallem Insurance Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: D. Luff, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul paragraph 18 of the Annex to Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul paragraph 18 of the Annex to Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71);

| — | Annul paragraph 18 of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul paragraph 18 of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55);

| — | Declare Article 12 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 (1) and Article 35 of Council Regulation 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (2) inapplicable to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 12 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 (1) and Article 35 of Council Regulation 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (2) inapplicable to the applicant;

1

2

| — | Order that the Council pay the Applicant’s costs of this application. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the Council pay the Applicant’s costs of this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Court has jurisdiction to review both paragraph 21, section B of the Annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP and paragraph 21, section B of Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010, as well as the decision of 28 October 2010 and their conformity with the general principles of European law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Court has jurisdiction to review both paragraph 21, section B of the Annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP and paragraph 21, section B of Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010, as well as the decision of 28 October 2010 and their conformity with the general principles of European law.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the specific reason for the listing of Moallem is wrong and the requirements of Article 20.1 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (as subsequently amended by Article 1.7 of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012, Article 1.8 of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 25 October 2012 and Article 1.2 of Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012), and the requirements of Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (as subsequently amended by Article 1.11 of Council Regulation 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012) are not met. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the specific reason for the listing of Moallem is wrong and the requirements of Article 20.1 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (as subsequently amended by Article 1.7 of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012, Article 1.8 of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 25 October 2012 and Article 1.2 of Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012), and the requirements of Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (as subsequently amended by Article 1.11 of Council Regulation 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012) are not met.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December are not sufficiently motivated. They violate Moallem’s rights of defence and its right to have a fair hearing since the Council never responded to Moallem’s letter of 6 February 2013 and Moallem was not granted access to the Council’s file. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December are not sufficiently motivated. They violate Moallem’s rights of defence and its right to have a fair hearing since the Council never responded to Moallem’s letter of 6 February 2013 and Moallem was not granted access to the Council’s file.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council violated articles 24.3 and 24.4 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Articles 46.3 and 46.4 of Council Regulation 267/2012. Articles 24.3 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and 46.3 of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 require the Council to communicate and notify its decision including the grounds for listing, and Articles 24.4 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and 46.4 of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 provide for the review of the decision when observations are submitted. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council violated articles 24.3 and 24.4 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Articles 46.3 and 46.4 of Council Regulation 267/2012. Articles 24.3 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and 46.3 of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 require the Council to communicate and notify its decision including the grounds for listing, and Articles 24.4 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and 46.4 of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 provide for the review of the decision when observations are submitted.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council, in its assessment of Moallem’s situation, violated the principle of sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council, in its assessment of Moallem’s situation, violated the principle of sound administration.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council, in its assessment of Moallem’s situation, violated the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council, in its assessment of Moallem’s situation, violated the principle of legitimate expectations.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that Article 12 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Article 35 of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 should not apply to Moallem insofar as they violate the principle of proportionality set forth in Article 5.4 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that Article 12 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Article 35 of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 should not apply to Moallem insofar as they violate the principle of proportionality set forth in Article 5.4 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, as subsequently amended, on the basis of which the contested Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 was adopted, violates Article 215, par. 2 and 3 TFEU as its legal basis, as well as Article 40 TEU. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, as subsequently amended, on the basis of which the contested Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 was adopted, violates Article 215, par. 2 and 3 TFEU as its legal basis, as well as Article 40 TEU.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 were adopted in violation of the principle of equality and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 were adopted in violation of the principle of equality and non-discrimination.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39)

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1)

2

---